ART. IX.-ON THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE LUTHERAN AND CALVINISTIC THEORIES ON THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION.

BY DR. F. SCHLEIERMACHER.

Translated from the German, with an Introductory Notice, by THE Editor,

THE following treatise, which is regarded as among the ablest and most effective of the productions of its author, was first published in 1819, as the Introductory Article of the "Theologische Zeitschrift," a journal conducted jointly by Schleiermacher, De Wette and Lücke. The close of this journal was signalized by the equally celebrated treatise on the "Contrast between the Athanasian and Sabellian Theories of the Trinity," which has been translated by Prof. Stuart, and presented to the public in the pages of the Biblical Repository. The first article will be found, we think, equally deserving a place in our language with the last. The subject of it relates more directly to the questions about which the church is now agitated; and the treatment of this subject exhibits at least in an equal degree that extent of learning, that accuracy of discrimination, that strength, consistency, and originality of thought, so conspicuous in the last named treatise, and indeed in all the productions of this author.

This treatise on the doctrine of Election was called forth by the attempt to effect an union between the Lutheran and Reformed Churches-an object which Schleiermacher, in common with the greatest and best men of both churches, ardently desired and laboured to promote. The doctrine of Election, as is well known, was one of the few points on which the two churches had divided, and with regard to which a bitter controversy had prevailed between them. The Lutheran church had adopted the theory, that Election proceeds on the ground of faith foreseen; the Calvinistic, that it is irrespective of faith, or of any thing good in man, and from the mere good pleasure of God. With regard to these different theories, Schleiermacher takes the ground, that they are by no means such as to authorize an ecclesiastical separation between those who hold them, or to forbid their cordial reunion. And yet he maintains that they are far from being unimportant either in themselves or in their

bearing on the whole Christian system, and that therefore they deserve a careful reconsideration. In inviting a new discussion, he distinctly avows his belief of the Calvinistic theory, and points out the inconsistency of the Lutheran theory with a doctrine regarded by the Articles and the theologians of his own church as fundamental, viz., the doctrine of man's entire inability to all goodness. To show the indissoluble connexion between this doctrine and the Calvinistic theory of Election, is the principal object of that portion of this treatise contained in the present number.

This connexion had been previously seen and acknowledged by Dr. Bretschneider in his "Aphorisms" And he knew of no way of escaping from the "decretum horrible" of Calvin, but to deny the doctrine of man's entire inability, of which it seemed to be a necessary inference. The great body of Lutheran theologians could not however, as Dr. Schleiermacher supposes, ever be brought to abandon a doctrine so fundamental, in their estimation, as the inability of man, in his natural state, to do any thing good; and hence had no alternative left, but to join with him in embracing the rigid theory of Augustin and Calvin, respecting the unconditionality of the divine decree of Election.

The boldness of the position here taken by Schleiermacher, in face of the prejudices of all his theological associates, the able manner in which he maintains his ground, together with the influence of his name, conspired to produce a great sensation throughout the Lutheran Church. Numerous replies from the most distinguished Lutheran theologians shortly appeared, in which an attempt was made to vindicate the consistency of the Lutheran Articles. Their inconsistency, however, is fully conceded to Schleiermacher by De Wette, in a reply to this treatise published in the next number of the same periodical, as will be seen by extracts from it which will be subjoined in a note.

Dr. Lücke remarks, in his Recollections of Schleiermacher, that to most persons the publication of this treatise appeared to be ill-timed, since, by defending the logical consistency of the Augustinian and Calvinistic doctrine of Election, it seemed adapted rather to injure, than to promote the union of the two evangelical confessions. "But when I suggested this to him," says Lücke," he explained his purpose of furthering this union by introducing a fresh discussion on a point which, to a superficial view, might seem

already exhausted, but which, if the union was to be completed with reference to the developement of a scientific theology, must sooner or later be made a question." "It is the merit of this treatise," as Lücke proceeds to say, "that it has excited a more thorough and accurate discussion of this difficult problem, and has given a new direction to the doctrinal discussions on this subject."

The argument contained in this article, though particularly appropriate to those to whom it was originally addressed, will be found not inapplicable to several portions of our own theological public. We shall here speak of the application of only that part of the whole argument which is contained in the first portion of the treatise, and published in the present number. This argument, as has been before said, relates to the inherent connexion which subsists between the doctrines of the entire inability of man and absolute election. Now this connexion deserves to be particularly considered by two classes belonging to the American Church. The one hold to the entire inability of man, and yet, like the great body of the Lutherans, deny the doctrine of unconditional decrees, which, according to our author, necessarily flows from it. The other class subscribe to our Calvinistic Confessions, and to the doctrine of unconditional Election among the rest, and yet deny the entire inability of man-the doctrine upon which, according to Schleiermacher, the whole Calvinistic system rests.

To the former class belong the followers of Wesley in the Methodist connexion, and those of the Episcopal Church who adopt the Arminian construction of their Articles. And it would seem, that the charge of inconsistency, here proved against the Lutherans, might for the same reasons, be substantiated against this whole class, since they agree in admitting the doctrine of inability, and in rejecting the doctrine of absolute Election. This inconsistency is not, indeed, chargeable upon the Articles of the Episcopal Church, as it is upon the Lutheran symbols; since the Calvinistic theory of Election, though not distinctly expressed, is yet, according to general consent, allowed by the former, while in the latter it is decidedly condemned. But the charge of inconsistency will not be easily escaped by those who, in their creed and litany, devoutly acknowledge the entire inability of man, and his native repugnance to holiness, and then, in their preaching and writing, reject and denounce the doctrine of uncon

ditional Election. It is a representation often made,* that those divines of the Episcopal Church who have adopted the doctrine of absolute decrees, have received it from the dark and troubled stream of the scholastic theology; while those who have rejected it, have been happily emancipated from the prescriptive dogmas and cobweb subtleties of the schoolmen. But in the light of the reasoning of this treatise, we cannot help regarding the former as having drawn it, as a necessary inference, from those doctrinal premises which lie deeply in the very bosom of their own church, and the latter, in rejecting it, as having broken stronger chains than the cobweb subtleties of Aquinas-the chains of strict consistency of theological system.

Assenting, however, as we most cordially do to the opinion of our author, that these theories, however different they may be, are not a sufficient ground for ecclesiastical separation, we cannot but approve that indeterminateness of the Articles of the English Church on this subject, which allows them to be honestly subscribed by those who lean either to a Calvinistic or an Arminian construction of the Christian system. No principle appears to us more obvious or more important, than that public Articles, which are to be made the basis and the terms of Christian fellowship, should be so simply framed as to secure the assent of all evangelical Christians, however weak or imperfect they may be in the faith of the gospel. When creeds established for general use descend, as they often do, to the decision of points which always have been, and probably ever will be disputed, they lay a snare for the consciences of those who may dissent from them in these respects, and who yet may be tempted by considerations of prudence or convenience to subscribe them. They also place those who may more rigidly adopt them, under a conscientious necessity of excluding or expelling from their communion those who may dissent from these established theories, though they may yet be regarded as, in general, evangelical believers, a process which must always prove a fruitful source of division within the church, and bring upon it from without the reproach of sectarian bigotry and exclusiveness. The interests of peace and of truth would, as we believe, be equally consulted by

We have seen it recently repeated in the Churchman, in an ingenious attempt to identify Calvinism and Popery. VOL. IV.

33

leaving the more precise determination of the different articles of the Christian faith to individual ministers and teachers, with their respective followers and schools, between whom a free discussion of these points should be allowed and even encouraged. Were the terrours of excision now impending over the course of theological discussion thus removed, its bitterness and violence would be greatly diminished. Nor could sound believers in the orthodox faith have any thing to fear from the most free and unembarrassed investigation.

There is a second class to whom, as has been intimated, the argument of this article applies, those who subscribe to the Calvinistic Confessions of the Presbyterian and most of the Congregational Churches, and to the doctrine of absolute decrees among the rest, and yet deny the doctrine of man's entire native inability to obey the divine law,-a case exactly the reverse of that which we have just mentioned, and of that which Schleiermacher had in view. Such a class there is in New-England and in portions of the Presbyterian Church. We do not refer to those who have contended for the natural ability of man in the sense of Edwards and Bellamy, and also of Watts and Fuller. By this doctrine they have meant to ascribe to man only such natural powers of intelligence and will as are necessary to constitute him a reasonable being and a moral agent, which have never been denied to man by those who have contended most strenuously for his entire inability. They have still held, in common with the great body of orthodox churches in every age, that these original powers of the mind are brought into such blindness and enslavement by the native depravity of the heart, that man is morally unable to obey the divine law, and absolutely dependent on divine grace for holiness.

But among those who speak of the natural ability of man, there are some of late years who use this phraseology in a sense widely different, and far more extensive than that originally intended. They regard man's natural ability as so great, that while they concede it never does, they contend it easily may, prevail over our moral inability. In other and plainer language, they represent the perverse desires of man's heart as subject to the controul of his voluntary power, so that he may turn them whithersoever he will. In so doing, while they aim to enhance the sense of obligation, they materially impair the sense of dependence; and